Rumbling about Rumble Strips

Right now the New York State Department of Transportation is considering implementing a new policy that would make the installation of rumble strips on secondary state roads standard protocol.

Rumble strips are dangerous for cyclists to ride on. Not only are they difficult to physically ride on or over, they effectively limit the space on the side of the road which one can travel via bicycle. Putting rumble strips on roads that bicycles are allowed to travel over forces cyclists to ride either in the lane, or if the shoulder is wide enough, to the right of the rumble strip. Where shoulders are narrow, the option to ride to the right is non-existent, and cyclists are forced out into traffic.

The New York Bicycling Coalition has followed this issue closely, and lobbied hard to prevent the implementation of the policy. Check out their primer on rumble strips, and their reasons for opposing the issue here. They’ve done a great job examining the DOT policy, national standards, and what constitutes logical use of rumble strips, so I won’t get into that here. Instead, I’d like to suggest that everyone take the time to contact the Department of Transportation and discourage the implementation of the policy. Contact your state assembly person and senator, and ask them to oppose the policy as well.

The statistics that the DOT is using to suggest rumble strips are an effective safety device are questionable. DOT says roadway drive offs occur in vast percentage, on secondary highways, and that installing rumble strips like they have on limited access highways is the solution to this issue.

People drive off the road because there are no rumble strips? Hmm…

Is it possible, perhaps that more drive offs resulting in deaths and injuries occur on secondary highways because limited access highways like the thruway are straight and have large clear run offs? Its simply a lot harder to hit something dangerous when you fly off the Thruway or the Northway than it is when you run off of a rural two lane state highway. The fact that a rumble strip is present on the highway is not the single reason why more people fly off of rural roads.

The Federal Highway Administration actually illustrates this point, albeit, in an effort to promote rumble strips. The FHA considers rumble strips to be a “useful” tool on secondary highways like the state routes targeted by DOT. The FHA says “[r]ural highways usually are not as well lit as urban roadways. Inclement weather such as fog, snow, smoke, or dust storms also can decrease the visibility of pavement markings. In these conditions, drivers may drive off the road accidentally.”* Lets think about what the FHA is saying here. Bad weather makes it hard to see and makes driving more dangerous. Rather than encouraging drivers to slow down and drive more carefully in these conditions, FHA suggests making the roadway more dangerous for cyclists by forcing them into the lane, but does not not ask drivers to take responsibility for their own careless driving and poor decision making. This is pathetic.

A better and more effective policy preventing run off accidents could be implemented quickly and at a fraction of the cost of installing rumble strips all over, simply by asking drivers to slow down and drive more carefully on rural roads, especially in inclement weather.

Do we need rumble strips on every mile of state road? No way.

Would a more cost effective method of preventing driver run offs be to ask people to simply drive more carefully? Certinaly.

Does it make sense to add rumble strips everywhere, at huge tax payer expense, to keep provide people who are unable to responsibly drive their cars on the road? No.

If a driver doesn’t have the sense to slow down and keep his or her car on the road, its his or her own fault for crashing. DOT doesn’t need to step in and “baby proof” our roads in a way that would make them extremely dangerous to cyclists.

6 Responses

Rumble strips? In New York? The horror! The horror! Or not. I can’t help but think that cyclists have more important things to worry about than this. Is there any hard evidence that rumble strips pose a genuine hazard to cyclists? Has any accident — in New York or elsewhere — been attributed to a cyclist losing control after crossing a rumble strip? The draft design guidance summarized in the NYSDOT factsheet entitled “Shoulder Rumble Strips” — it can be downloaded at — would seem on first inspection to provide ample protection for cyclists’ interests. Just where do these guidelines fall short?

Of course, I know that the New York Bicycle Coalition has their collective knickers in a twist of over this putative issue. That much, at least, is evident from the histrionic quality of their press releases and webpage copy, some of which borders on the risible. This is best exemplified by the unnamed “concerned cyclist” whose e-mail they quote to the effect that “NOTHING [caps in original]” — not even “jumping out of planes” or “serious steep skiing in deep powder” — can prepare a cyclist for “the shear [sic] terror of hitting one of these [rumble] strips.”

My, my, my! Is it really as bad as all that? Then I’ll have to move to another state immediately. Or — and I suggest this only with the greatest diffidence — is it just possible that the NYBC’s “concerned cyclist” has led too sheltered a life, despite having jumped out of planes (with a parachute, presumably)? If so, perhaps fitting training wheels would free him (or her) from the awful burden of this terrible fear. I certainly hope so.

In any case, it would be good to know what evidence there is to support the contention that the proposed NYSDOT guidelines represent a real threat to cyclists, let alone that the installation of rumble strips on some 8,000 miles of New York roadways would make them, in Eric Schillinger’s ringing words, “extremely dangerous.” And while Eric’s at it, I’d also like to know why he thinks that “ask[ing] people to simply drive more carefully” would have any meaningful effect on motorists’ behavior. Well, perhaps if we all said “Pretty please”… That should do the trick, eh?

I fear that Eric has taken my ironic counterpoint to NYBC histrionics a touch too seriously. Despite my having never jumped out of an airplane, I haven’t yet been reduced to a quivering jelly by an all-consuming fear of rumble strips. So I won’t be leaving New York on that account. Still, it’s heartwarming to know that my small contribution to this blog is valued. Perhaps Eric and I will meet at the Bike!Bike! Northeast weekend in April. I hope so. Then I’ll be able to express my thanks for his good wishes in person.

To business now: Thus far we have a somewhat ambiguous report of a single, ostensibly rumble-strip-related accident, resulting in a chipped tooth, a cut lip, and a lawsuit. Unfortunately, the NYT article to which Eric thoughtfully provided a link leaves a number of important questions unanswered. I’m at a loss to understand how the wheel of a bike can “get caught” in a rumble strip, for one thing, or how an experienced cyclist can “not see” said rumble strip in time to avoid it, if he so wishes — unless the cyclist is riding at night without an adequate headlamp, that is. There’s also the question of whether or not the muscular rumble strip that tossed Sergeant Wilt over his handlebars was located so as to violate NYSDOT guidelines. The NYT article raises this possibility, but the matter is left unresolved. I’d like to know more. I’d also like to know if anyone is aware of any other injuries to cyclists attendant on too-close encounters with rumble strips. Or is the unfortunate Wilt their only victim?

Lastly, Eric invites me to consider if “it is the government’s job to prevent foolish and irresponsible drivers from injuring themselves” — and perhaps killing wise and responsible cyclists in the process — “at great tax payer [sic] expense” when the aforesaid drivers drift from the roadway onto the shoulder at speed.

Well, I have done as Eric suggests. My conclusion? It’s easily stated: Nothing I have read here or in any of the material marshaled by the NYBC persuades me either that properly engineered rumble strips pose a significant hazard to competent cyclists, or that they constitute an undue burden on the taxpaying — and road-using — public. The NYSDOT, in its “Rumble Strip” factsheet*, makes the claim that “rumble strips are a proven, cost-effective way to help prevent roadway departure crashes.” Moreover, they offer a substantial body of evidence in support of this assertion. Unless NYBC can convincingly rebut the weight of evidence so presented, therefore, I’m forced to conclude that the case for the extension of rumble strips to suitable secondary roads has been fairly and fully made. Histrionics and hyperbole are no substitute for argument. And the NYSDOT has both argument and evidence on its side. To date, the NYBC has neither.

Typos aside, this issue is about personal responsibility. People should not be driving their cars when they are drowsy and risk falling asleep. Its not the government’s role to step in and idiot proof our roadways.

When an action taken to assist a few irresponsible individuals threatens the greater use of the road by responsible people it must be questioned.

I suggest you go ride on the rumble strips recently installed on Route 7 in Massachusetts near Jiminy Peak, then come back and comment on whether or not this is a good idea.

Road bikes and touring bikes were meant to be ridden on flat surfaces, not over raised objects. While the strips generally will not knock you off your bike, crossing a wet one on a descent can be dangerous. More importantly, why subject cyclists to a series of very uncomfortable bumps in the road at all? It certainly will not encourage cyclists to use those roads. The only way to avoid them is to either move into traffic or take the outer edge of the shoulder, which is often broken or strewn with debris. Is there any reason why the strips cannot be designed to parallel the road rather than traverse it perpendicularly? A strip about a foot-wide, but continuous (or spaced more closely than the strips) would seem to create the same effect, but would also give the cyclists enough shoulder to travel and additionally segregate them from traffic.

Ed Sailland (quoting Eric Schillinger) writes:
“Lastly, Eric invites me to consider if ‘it is the government’s job to prevent foolish and irresponsible drivers from injuring themselves’ — and perhaps killing wise and responsible cyclists in the process — ‘at great tax payer [sic] expense’ when the aforesaid drivers drift from the roadway onto the shoulder at speed.”

Ed – do you seriously believe that a rumble strip (located 2″ outside the road’s edge line, per the proposed NYSDOT guidelines) is going to keep a motorist in close proximity to cyclists riding on the shoulder from hitting them as as the car starts to drift off the road? And if not in close proximity, either the motorist goes off the road (and hopefully survives, but probably does not continue driving and endangering cyclists) or continues to drive, presumably without paying close attention to the road and/or in some other impaired or reckless fashion that caused the drift in the first place. Do you really think that rumble strips, which presumably would increase the likelihood of the second case, protect cyclist safety in any way whatsoever?

The reality is that these sort of motorist-coddling measures just encourage drivers to pay less attention to their driving, since if they are at any risk of driving off the road, the rumble strip will alert them – this makes it more convenient to send that text message, or rummage through the bag on the other seat looking for the ringing cell phone. Just like many other putative safety and protection measures before, the effectiveness will drop off as people build the new measure into their unconscious risk evaluation strategies and engage in what would previously have been riskier behavior (inattention, higher speed, etcetera).

So the cyclists, in addition to the hazards of the rumble strips themselves, will also have to face an increased chance of being run down by an inattentive motorist while riding in the lane rather than the shoulder *as they are legally entitled to* for any reason (debris on shoulder, stopped car or other obstacle, insufficiently wide shoulder). And because of the rumble strips cyclists will also be more likely to have to ride in the lane for longer in these cases, to avoid crossing the rumble strip, putting them even more at risk.

Ed, you can argue as much as you want that rumble strips are important safety devices for motorists, and that this benefit outweighs their detriment to cyclists, but please don’t even try to claim (even in an aside) that rumble strips are beneficial to cyclists.

The NYSDOT Rumble Strip factsheet does this explicitly: “The study also found that rumble strips were essential to ensure bicyclists’ safety, as they tend to alert the motorist before they infringe onto the vehicle part of the shoulder.” But they provide no statistics to back up that statement in any way, and although I haven’t read the study to know for sure, I strongly suspect that this “finding” is purely conjectural and based on some “common sense” attempt at justification for a device that benefits motorists.

Note: The Times Union is not responsible for posts and comments written by non-staff members.